Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinance & Admin - 1994-10-31FAC\1994-10-31 OCTOBER 31, 1994 FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES CITY OF KITCHENER The Finance and Administration Committee met this date, commencing at 10:00 a.m., under the Chairmanship of Councillor C. Zehr with the following Members present: Councillors B. Stortz, T. Galloway, G. Lorentz, C. Weylie, J. Ziegler and M. Yantzi. Mayor D.V. Cardillo, Councillors J. Smola and M. Wagner were in attendance for part of the meeting. Others present: Messrs. T. McKay, J. Gazzola, T. McCabe, T. Clancy, G. Sosnoski and Ms. D. Arnold. 1. AUDIT OF MILEAGE CLAIMS The Committee was in receipt of reports from Mr. T. McKay and Mr. J. Gazzola dated October 31 and October 28, 1994 concerning an audit City employee mileage claims undertaken in response to a submission from Mr. Austin Beachey. Mr. Austin Beachey was in attendance and advised that he had just now received the reports, which he characterized as a "white wash", adding that from his standpoint they are unacceptable. Mr. McKay explained that the report from the Finance Department was completed late Friday afternoon, and his covering memo was drafted early this morning. He noted that the audit by Finance Department staff examined records for discrepancies before and after November 1992, and that there was nothing to indicate an abuse of the present mileage claim system. Councillor Galloway suggested that the matter raised by Mr. Beachey deserves further attention, and Councillor Ziegler indicated more time would be required to review the reports. On a motion by Councillor T. Galloway, It was resolved: "That further consideration of the mileage audit undertaken by the Finance Department and outlined in the memorandum from Mr. J. Gazzola dated October 28, 1994 be deferred and referred to the November 21, 1994 Finance and Administration Committee meeting. Mr. McKay encouraged Mr. Beachey to discuss the report with staff prior to the November 21, 1994 meeting. 2. WORKING GROUP REPORT -VICIOUS DOGS The Committee was in receipt of a summary report Ms. D. Arnold containing the recommendations of the working group appointed by the Finance and Administration Committee on September 19, 1994, along with a draft by-law to amend Chapter 530 (Dogs) of the City's Municipal Code. Councillor Stortz thanked all those who participated in the working group meetings, noting that two were held and Minutes subsequently circulated to members of Council. He advised that two significant recommendations have not been presented to the Committee this date, firstly, that the Region of Waterloo impose tougher home quarantine criteria after a dog has bitten the first time, and that a common database be developed listing all licensed dogs and related information for sharing with all dog regulatory and enforcement agencies in the Region. Councillor Stortz characterized the recommendations before the Committee this date as practical, responsible and enforceable and noted that further amendments would be introduced this date. Councillor Stortz moved the recommendation of the working group that Chapter 530 (Dogs) of the Municipal Code be amended in accordance with the draft by-law appended to the report of Ms. D. Arnold. Ms. Arnold explained the draft amending by-law and noted that under the revised legislation all dogs must be constrained when on the owner's property. She also noted that the existing "vicious dog" provision will be replaced by a similar "dangerous dog" provision and a new category entitled "potentially dangerous dog". Ms. Arnold reviewed the definitions for both categories and explained that the Poundkeeper would be responsible for determining whether a FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 317 1994 - 94 - CITY OF KITCHENER dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous. She also advised that the further amendment 2. WORKING GROUP REPORT - VICIOUS DOGS CONT'D referred to by Councillor Stortz involves Section 530.5.5(b) which would be changed to reflect a total three occasions within a twelve month period. Ms. Arnold outlined the mitigating factors referred to in the by-law which the Poundkeeper would consider before enforcing the legislation. She also referred to the appeal process which an owner could initiate in the event that he/she disagrees with a designation assigned by the Poundkeeper. She advised that the working group had reached some consensus as to the composition of an appeal committee and suggested three members, being, a Member of Council, a Veterinarian and an executive member of the K-W Kennel Club. Ms. Arnold also referred to the notification procedures which would be followed subsequent to transferring ownership of a dangerous dog. Councillor Stortz referred to additional items including a suggestion that the appeal committee could recommend mediation where appropriate, and that as a procedural option the Humane Society could assist in informing owners of potentially dangerous animals of the amended by-law. He suggested that the City should be proactive in this regard. Councillor Stortz also explained that the proposed by-law is unique with respect to Canadian municipalities. Councillor Lorentz suggested that the by-law should specifically include the name of the appeal committee and that the requirement for the owner of a potentially dangerous dog to obtain one million dollars in third party liability insurance be imposed only after any appeal of the designation has been dealt with. He suggested that it may be unreasonable to ask an owner to obtain insurance in the event such an appeal is granted. Ms. Arnold pointed out that the working group felt the requirement should take effect immediately and asked for the Committee's direction in this regard. Councillor Lorentz clarified that with the exception of the third party liability insurance he agrees that all other provisions relative to potentially dangerous dogs should be implemented immediately. Councillor Ziegler also suggested that the potentially dangerous designation should be applied where a dog has been impounded or an owner convicted of allowing the animal to run at large on two rather than the three occasions referred to in the draft by-law. He also noted that these two occasions should be within one twelve month period. Councillor Ziegler further suggested that the by-law should go one step further to explicitly state that the public has the right to petition to have a dog declared potentially dangerous. He also referred to the maximum eight foot leash length in the current dog by-law and suggested that the by-law should clearly state that retractable leashes are not legal. Councillor J. Smola entered the meeting at this time. In response to a question from Councillor Galloway, Ms. Arnold clarified that the burden of proof with respect to any mitigating factors referred to in the by-law rests exclusively with the dog owner. She added however that these are not automatic defenses which would excuse aggressive behaviour. Councillor Galloway asked how dogs which had been identified as dangerous would be identified. Ms. Arnold acknowledged that this could be a problem, and that the Committee had looked at the possibility of microchip implantation. She added that confusion would only arise where an owner has two or more dogs of a similar appearance. Mr. Don Diebold appeared in his capacity as a representative of Invisible Fencing of the Golden Triangle and referred to problems encountered with conventional containment methods. He explained the concept of Invisible Fencing which is a form of electronic containment involving the transmission of audible tones and the application of electric shocks or "corrections". He stressed that the electric shock would not hurt an animal but would get its attention. Mr. Diebold pointed out that the product has been tested by a major veterinary college and judged to be one hundred percent safe. Mr. Diebold asked that Council give favourable consideration to including Invisible Fencing as a method of containment in the by-law, adding that he would not recommend this product be used as the sole means of containing dangerous dogs. Councillor M. Wagner entered the meeting at this time. 2. WORKING GROUP REPORT - VICIOUS DOGS CONT'D FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 31 ~ 1994 - 95 - CITY OF KITCHENER Ms. Cindy Mclnnis appeared on behalf of the K-W Kennel Club and in support of the recommendations of the dangerous dog working group. She offered the opinion that the amended by-law would be workable and offer equal protection to everyone as well as addressing problems before a dog bites for the first time. She stressed that in the majority of cases irresponsible owners are to blame for dog attacks and that the amended by-law clearly places responsibility on the dog owner. She also pointed out that the by-law recognizes mitigating factors which could excuse aggressive behaviour, and that the working group had also suggested more comprehensive reporting with respect to dog bites. Ms. Mclnnis thanked Councillors J. Ziegler and G. Leadston as well as Ms. D. Arnold, and extended special thanks to Councillor B. Stortz for their assistance and direction. Mayor D.V. Cardillo entered the meeting at this time. Ms. Mclnnis suggested that the number of occurrences where a dog is found running at large prior to being declared potentially dangerous should remain at three, rather than the two occurrences referred to by Councillor Ziegler. She explained that this third occurrence allows for situations where a dog demonstrates unusual tenacity in escaping from the owner's property. Ms. Tawny Sinasac indicated her support for the recommendations before the Committee this date, characterizing them as reasonable with respect to both dog owners and the broader public. She indicated that she was pleased Council had taken the time to listen and act on her concerns and that she was very satisfied with the process undertaken by the working group. She extended special thanks to Councillors G. Lorentz, G. Leadston, J. Ziegler and B. Stortz as well as Ms. D. Arnold. Mr. Clifford Shaw appeared in support of his written comments dated October 31, 1994 which were previously circulated to Members of Council. Mr. Shaw suggested further refinement of the amending by-law and suggested the following: the appeal committee be comprised of between five and seven appointees rather than three, but that the quorum remain small in order to prevent delays; that third party liability coverage for potentially dangerous dogs not be required where an owner has lodged an appeal until such time as the appeal has been dealt with; that a limit be placed on the time that an owner has to file a written appeal, with this being seventy-two hours from the date of receiving notification that the dog has been declared potentially dangerous; that an appeals committee should meet within fifteen days of a designation by the Poundkeeper. Mr Shaw stressed that in his opinion the time frame for appeals and appeal hearings should be narrow on the basis that the Poundkeepers designation is correct in the majority of cases. He also stressed that the dog must be kept strictly confined during the appeal process. Councillor Zehr indicated that due to a prior commitment he would have to leave the meeting at this time, and Councillor B. Stortz assumed the Chair. Ms. Arnold commented that a by-law cannot be constructed in such a way as to make it difficult to comply and expressed her concern that the seventy-two hour period referred to by Mr. Shaw may be too narrow. She suggested alternative wording of three business days. She also pointed out that Mr. Shaw's amendments make no reference to the muzzling requirement relative to potentially dangerous dogs. Mr. Shaw replied that the owner would be required to contain the dog on the premises and in this regard muzzling would be redundant. Ms. Arnold argued that constraining the dog on the property may be difficult for people living in apartments and that muzzling may be more appropriate in some circumstances. Dr. G. Hess appeared on behalf of the Humane Society and referred to the development of an identification program. He noted that microchip implantation is an ideal system for dogs that are either dangerous or potentially dangerous and it was noted that such an implantation would likely cost approximately forty dollars. In response to a question from Councillor Stortz, Ms. Arnold advised that the Municipal Act provides the authority to implement this type of identification program. Councillor Lorentz questioned whether the Humane Society had ever considered a licensing system tied to rabies vaccination and Dr. Hess replied that at present it is intended that 2. WORKING GROUP REPORT - VICIOUS DOGS CONT'D the licensed dogs be vaccinated and a question in this regard is included on the application form. Councillor Lorentz also questioned whether the present hours of operation of the Humane Society FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 317 1994 - 96 - CITY OF KITCHENER would allow for effective enforcement of the amended by-law, given the fact that most dogs are walked either in the evening or the early morning hours. He asked whether consideration would be given to changing the hours of operation. Councillor Stortz advised that Council could pay for additional enforcement under the fee for service contract, but that this would be a separate issue. Mr. Wilf Bonnell clarified that the Humane Society has drivers on the road beginning at 7:00 a.m. and that at least one driver is available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Councillor Ziegler indicated that in light of the explanation from Ms. Mclnnis he would support a dog being designated potentially dangerous after it has been impounded on three occasions provided the by-law is amended to indicate that these are within one twelve month period. He also asked that the by-law specifically indicate that members of the public can initiate an investigation leading to a potentially dangerous or dangerous designation. He also indicated his support for removing the requirement for third party liability insurance until such time as the appeal process has been completed. Councillor Ziegler also asked that it be clearly stated that retractable leashes are not legal for any dog beyond the eight foot limit. Councillor Stortz argued that the latter change would be unnecessary as there is presently a prohibition on leashes in excess of eight feet. Councillor Ziegler explained that he would like specific reference made to retractable leashes. Mr. McKay suggested that the retractable leash issue along with other changes made by the City to the Dog By-law could be advertised in the Public Notice section of the newspaper as well as the four editions of Leisure Magazine. Councillor Stortz suggested a general information statement regarding potentially dangerous dogs and the role of the appeal committee. Councillor Ziegler advised that an individual in his Ward who owns property zoned Agricultural is concerned about the requirement that dogs be kept contained within the farm property. Councillor Ziegler suggested that the containment requirement which applies to dogs in an urban environment should not apply to working dogs used on a farm property. Ms. Arnold acknowledged that this issue was never discussed by the working group, and Councillor Galloway suggested that it is incumbent on Council to grant an exemption in this regard. Councillor Lorentz asked whether the City's own staff could be involved in enforcing the Animals- at-Large By-law. He also re-stated that in his opinion all dogs should be licensed and that licensing should be tied to rabies vaccination. With regard to Invisible Fencing, Councillor Lorentz noted that it appears to be a viable alternative, and suggested that this be pursued at a later date. Councillor Ziegler pointed out that Invisible Fencing would only be as good as the training provided by the owner and noted that the vendor himself had indicated this system is not suitable for dangerous dogs. Councillor Ziegler suggested that no action be taken on the request to add Invisible Fencing to the By-law. Councillor Ziegler also advised that he agrees with the insertion of microchips for dogs considered dangerous or potentially dangerous. Dr. Hess advised that the Humane Society would prefer implanting rather than tattooing as a means of identification. Councillor Lorentz enquired whether a dangerous dog designation would ever be removed, and Ms. Arnold confirmed that the designation would remain for the life of the dog. Councillor Galloway argued that Invisible Fencing should be included as a method of containment relative to Section 530.5.4 of the draft amending by-law. Councillor Lorentz asked whether it was possible to have a demonstration of the system at a location in the City prior to the November 7, 1994 Council meeting, and Mr. Diebold replied in the affirmative. Dr. Hess referred to an installation he is personally familiar with, and noted that the owner's St. Bernard runs through his Invisible Fence. Councillor Ziegler stated that Invisible Fencing should only be added if the City is convinced it works. He also referred to the issue of public perception and the sense of security provided by conventional fencing and noted that Invisible Fencing would not deliver the same measure of assurance. Councillor Lorentz asked that this item be considered further at the November 7, 1994 Council meeting. 2. WORKING GROUP REPORT - VICIOUS DOGS CONT'D Councillor Stortz agreed to treat a number of suggestions made this date as friendly amendments and the main motion, as amended, was then voted on. On a motion by Councillor B. Stortz, It was resolved: FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 317 1994 - 97 - CITY OF "That the draft by-law appended to the memorandum of Ms. D. Arnold dated October 25, 1994 amending Chapter 530 (Dogs) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code relative to dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs be enacted subject to the following amendments: Section 530.5.5(b) reflecting convictions on a total of three occasions within one twelve month period; that where a dog has been designated as potentially dangerous and an appeal has been lodged by the owner, the third party liability coverage referred to under Section 530.5.9(c) be required subsequent to the outcome of such appeal; the by-law clearly indicating that any member of the public can initiate the process whereby the Poundkeeper assesses whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous; the owner of a dog designated either dangerous or potentially dangerous being given three business days from the date of receiving notice from the Humane Society to lodge an appeal of such designation, and that the appeal be heard within fifteen business days of the City receiving the owner's request; the by-law making specific reference to the Dangerous Dogs Appeal Committee; the owners of lands in the City zoned Agricultural being granted an exemption from use of the containment methods outlined in Section 530.5.4; microchip implantation for identification purposes being required for all dogs designated dangerous or potentially dangerous, with same being at the owner's expense and subject to the outcome of any appeal of the designation, and, KITCHENER That Council appoint a Dangerous Dogs Appeal Committee to review appeals by the owner of a dog which has been declared dangerous or potentially dangerous by the Poundkeeper with said Committee to be comprised of the following: a Member of Council; a Veterinarian; an executive member of the K-W Kennel Club, and that in the interest of ensuring that hearings are held in a timely manner, alternates be appointed in each of the three categories, and further, That at the November 7, 1994 meeting, Council further consider a request to include Invisible Fencing as a permitted method of containment relative to Chapter 530 (Dogs), and further clarify Section 530.4.3 regarding the length of leashes. 3. NEXT MEETING The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Finance and Administration Committee will be held on Monday, November 21, 1994. 4. ADJOURNMENT On motion, the meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. ........... G. Sosnoski ........... Manager of Corporate ........... Records/Assistant City Clerk